I got in a discussion with a contact of mine recently about the phrase "puppy mill." It was related to some differences of opinion about how many of us advocate to limit or end the commercial production of dogs (in ways which would shock and appall most of the dog-loving American public if they were to see, hear and smell the operations). This person and I do not agree on many topics, the most basic of which is use of the phrase "puppy mill." So, what does the phrase really mean? It depends on who you ask. For some, a puppy mill is a dog breeding operation, either large or small, in which profit is the focus of the business and in which the well-being of the dogs is of little concern or at least secondary concern. Dogs from this type of breeding operation routinely spend their entire lives in small cages. Many of the cages are wire crates which lack solid floors and are no larger than your dishwasher. The dogs are more often than not physically injured or psychologically scarred from the conditions in which they are forced to live and they receive no veterinary care at all. They have cancers, are missing eyes and parts of limbs, their teeth are likely rotted and they may have a host of other serious health issues which go unseen. They are bred repeatedly until they are no longer capable of producing profitable puppies. This is the type of business which is routinely the subject of media reports, articles written by journalists and solicitations for donations made by large animal welfare organizations. For others, a puppy mill is any commercial dog breeding operation at all even if the dogs are treated with a greater level of attention and receive regular veterinary care. Most of these dogs also spend their entire lives in cages but are simply treated better. Some are socialized, given time to exercise outside of their cages and are better prepared to be someone’s beloved pet. (For the sake of this discussion, the word "commercial" is intended to mean a money-making business which exists for the sole purpose of producing dogs to be sold to the public in some way.) There are some who go one step further and fault all dog breeding operations, even those by responsible breeders who only breed dogs periodically for families, for breed competitions or for use in some service capacity. These people proclaim that we should not "breed or buy while shelter dogs die" and see all breeders as the enemy. Looking at the words which make up the phrase, we all know what the word "puppy" means. It refers to a young dog. The word "mill" is also understood by most people. It has historically meant a building equipped with machinery for grinding grain into flour. It can also mean a factory for certain kinds of manufacture such as paper, steel, or textiles. More recently, the word has been used to describe a business or institution that dispenses products or services in an impersonal or mechanical manner, as if produced in a factory. Examples include "divorce mill" or "diploma mill." I have been told that those who breed dogs for a living, regardless of where they are located, take great offense at the phrase "puppy mill." I am told that to them, the phrase is the equivalent of a racial or ethnic slur and that if we are ever to reform the commercial dog breeding industry, we need to stop using the phrase "puppy mill" so we don’t offend these people. I simply do not agree. I have no issue whatsoever with using the phrase puppy mill to describe commercial dog breeding operations. I would not call my dentist (who breeds Black Russian Terriers for dog competitions) a puppy miller because she is a responsible breeder who has had very few litters of puppies in the almost two decades we have known each other. Her breeding of Black Russian Terriers is to perpetuate breed standards and her dogs have competed in major competitions. When looking beyond these small-time breeding operations like hers, I focus on the meanings of the individual words. Puppies are being produced. They are being produced in a factory or mill-like manner for profit. So for me, a puppy mill is any industry which produces dogs on a regular basis in any volume as a money-making venture. I appreciate the fact that some dog breeders are not happy with use of the phrase puppy mill. I presume that people who raise dogs as part of a multi-generation family business and who work hard to care for the dogs don't like being labeled in a way which causes them to be perceived in the same way as are those who see dogs as inventory, caring little for the well-being of the "breeder stock." To those people who feel offended, I would say this. The phrase is used to describe behavior related to a chosen profession producing dogs for profit. If you find the phrase offensive, that is because you are interpreting it personally, as if it is a personal attack on you as an individual. It is not. It is a reference to your mass production of dogs in an industrial or mill-like manner. If yours is an operation about which you are proud and which bears no resemblance to the types of horrid operations we read about in articles or see in programs on Animal Planet or see as the subject of marketing campaigns to solicit money to stop the objectification and abuse of dogs, by all means be proud of what you are doing. People like me will continue to seek better for dogs until we find ways as a society to either limit your production of dogs or we find ways to ensure your dogs live in better conditions more in keeping with public expectations. And then police your own industry. If you don’t want to be compared to those "lesser" operations producing dogs which horrify us all, please put your damaged feelings aside and acknowledge that there are those who share your profession who allow dogs to suffer, who abuse dogs and who neglect dogs. Work in your own way to advocate yourselves to improve your industry as a whole. Advocacy is about speaking out about things we want to change in our society. When it comes to animal welfare advocacy, we speak out on behalf of the animals who cannot speak for themselves. I think we need to careful to not blame the messenger for the fact that the message was necessary in the first place. The animal-loving public is becoming increasingly aware of, and alarmed by, what takes place in the commercial dog breeding industry. We don’t hate those who breed dogs in mass quantities as people. We disapprove of their behavior. And we want it to change or stop. Using the phrase "puppy mill" to help educate the public serves a purpose as our use of language is molded and shaped to fit our culture. It is a tool to communicate a concept. (images courtesy of Pet Shop Puppies, Inc. and George Hodan)
11 Comments
There are few things more tragic in our lives than loss of life. Whether we lose parents, siblings or friends, that loss can have a tremendous impact on how we see the world and on how we move forward as we find our “new normal.” For many of us, the loss of a beloved companion animal is no less tragic and in some cases we are affected more profoundly than we are by human losses. We love the people in our lives, but we just don’t spend as much time with them as we do with our pets. When a friend dies, we grieve. When a beloved dog or cat dies, we may be changed as people. This is not to compare the loss of people to the loss of pets. They are just different types of loss and much of that comes from the fact that we spend so much time together. Your dog or cat is there when you wake up and there when you go to sleep. You spend hours feeding them, engaging with them, playing with them and caring for them. You likely take them places and celebrate holidays and birthdays with them. They are there on your worst of days, accepting you just as you are without judgment. Our companion animals become as much a presence in our lives as is breathing. When we lose them, the reminders of that loss cannot be escaped. The places where we live seem extraordinarily quiet without them, even if they did not talk much. The place where their dishes were located or where they beds took up space are constant reminders of someone we love who is no longer there each and every day to comfort us, understand us, make us laugh and make us cry. Everyone who loves companion animals has suffered loss because there is no escaping it. If you are incredibly lucky, your beloved pet will pass in his or her sleep. If you are not so lucky, you have likely had to make what Marion Hale once called The Terrible Decision to have your pet euthanized to either end or prevent suffering. There are also occasions when animals get loose and are never found again, leaving questions for which there will never be answers. Regardless of how we part ways, our beloved dogs and cats simply do not live as long as we would like. We know that going in and we accept it anyway because the unconditional love they provide us is worth the eventual loss. Because of our relationships with our pets, and how losing them is so very tragic, I wanted to take an opportunity to let you know about Poison Prevention Awareness Month which is recognized in March of each year. Do you know what substances are toxic to your pet? If your pet was poisoned, do you know what you would do? There are a host of articles on the Internet on this topic that most of us don’t pay much attention to until we have to. In order to make sure we keep our companion animals as safe as possible, so they can live full and healthy lives, I encourage you to take the time to learn about which items and substances can either make your pets incredibly sick or may end their lives. Our time with them is too short already and we owe it to them to educate ourselves so we don’t inadvertently expose them to something which can hurt them and have them end up paying for our ignorance with their health or their lives. The graphic shown here is a good start. I hope you’ll save it somewhere so you can refer to it. I also recommend that you keep the following phone numbers handy in the event of a disaster: your veterinarian’s office number and emergency contact number (if one is available) the contact information for the emergency veterinary clinic near you; and The Pet Poison Helpline The Pet Poison Helpline is Pet Poison Helpline is a 24-hour animal poison control service available throughout the U.S., Canada, and the Caribbean for pet owners and veterinary professionals who require assistance with treating a potentially poisoned pet. They have the ability to help every poisoned pet, with all types of poisonings, 24 hours a day; their knowledge and expertise of pet poisons can put your mind at ease when dealing with a potential emergency. In order to provide this critical service, the Pet Poison Helpline charges a $49 per incident fee (payable by credit card) to cover the initial consultation as well as all follow-up calls associated with the management of the case. This link also contains information about poisonous plants and may be helpful to you. I hope you never have to get help for a pet who has been poisoned. If you do, I hope you are prepared with the information you need to be able to act quickly to save the life of someone you love. (images courtesy of Mary McClure, Vegas Animal 411 and Candace Camp)
I know that life is short and so I really try to take advantage of every day. Each day is a gift. I try to do a mental reset each morning, let go of past differences and focus on doing something good. But this morning proved again that the way in which you care for your dog makes it really hard for me to stay positive on some days. I know that there are cultural differences when it comes to dogs and how we treat them. Some dogs are family members. Some dogs serve some function or purpose related to security or hunting. Some dogs live outside all the time and are used as a sort of living security system. I heard on a program recently that for some, the attitude is that “animals don't come inside unless they're going on a plate.” As offensive as that statement was to me, I get it. Your dog is your dog and while your treatment of your dog may cause me to lose sleep at night, there is little I can do about it unless you are breaking the law. Most cites and counties across the country have laws about dogs running at large. These laws are not about interfering with your personal decisions about how you treat your “property.” They are about public safety. While you may think it is appropriate to let your dog run loose and you may think your dog will not harm or scare anyone, the law in most places makes it illegal to liberate your dog each day to roam the land as if it was still 1870. Not everyone likes dogs and some people are afraid of them. The people most likely to be injured by a dog are children and the elderly. Even if your dog is so incredibly docile that it would never harm or scare a person, your dog is still no match for fast-moving vehicles or even slow-moving drivers who are not paying attention. Beyond the whole injury or death issues, there are financial issues involved. When you allow your dog to run at large, he or she may be picked up by animal control authorities, causing taxpayer dollars to be used to house, feed and then perhaps destroy your dog. If your dog is killed by a vehicle, taxpayer dollars are used for the costs of removing the body of your dog from state and federal roadways and rights-of-way. I understand that dogs get loose and not every dog outside is there due to someone's irresponsibility. If your dog lives outside and is a fence jumper, digger or has the propensity to bolt when a gate is left ajar, I want you to take steps to keep your dog contained. You can use a fence or a run line for this. If you say you cannot afford those items, then bring your dog inside. It's just that simple. Most dogs are easily house trained and in the end, it is up to you to learn your dog's language, teach him to learn yours and give him the structure and exercise he needs. There is talk of doing a round-up of loose dogs in Houston in advance of the Super Bowl. Those dogs are or were someone's pet or were born outside to dogs who were someone's pets. It will be a tragic loss if those dogs are summarily killed just to make the city look better and so the city can say it worked hard to ensure public safety. It should have been addressing the stray dog issue all along and before it got to the point where things got so out of hand. I have the phone numbers for five Department of Transportation Offices on my phone and I had to call one of them again this morning on my way to work. He was in the middle of the road between the 308 and 309 mile markers in the northbound lanes. I came upon him unexpectedly because there was a lot of traffic. It took my breath away to see him. But I made the call. And then I cried for your dog. You will never know what happened to him even though I do. Please. Keep your dogs safe. Not just for public safety purposes. Because you owe it to them to help them live long and full lives. It's not 1870 anymore. (frontier image courtesy of the Utah Historical Society)
I have been working on advancing a dog ordinance in the city where I live for about a year and a half. It is set on the agenda for the city council meeting next week for a first reading. If all goes as I hope, the ordinance will be adopted later this month or in early February. My pitch to my mayor and city council members for the ordinance covered four points: public safety, animal welfare, property resale potential and community pride. I already have a page on my website about chaining dogs and I have another page about dog aggression, on which I cover the story of a WWII veteran named Donald Thomas who was attacked and killed by two dogs in Leeds, Alabama in September of 2012 when he went to check the mail. Our law firm handled the defense of a civil lawsuit against the City of Leeds. It was truly one of the most tragic and gruesome cases I have ever been involved with in over 20 years as a paralegal. Some push-back I got recently about my dog ordinance from a woman in our city considered an authority on all things animal led me to cover this topic in a blog to help make the case for ordinances like the one I developed. The complete ordinance is found here. The provisions are pretty simple and not at all unreasonable as far as I am concerned. If your dog lives inside, you are free to care for that dog any way you see fit. I would hope your dog is well fed, receives proper veterinary care and is treated as a member of your family. If your dog lives outside, that is another matter entirely. The ordinance sets forth the methods by which a dog who lives perpetually outside may be contained and may not be contained and it sets forth basic standards for housing and care. The state laws in Alabama do not currently define what constitutes shelter, are pretty lax related to what constitutes neglect, abuse and cruelty and do not prohibit direct point chaining or tethering of dogs. While I have every reason to believe a bill will be pre-filed by a state representative any day now which would prohibit chaining and tethering in all of Alabama, I wanted to take steps in my own community to set some basic standards. So, why is it any business of any government, local or state, how you treat your dog? Here’s why. Public Safety. Your dog may not be dangerous to you, but your dog can be dangerous to other people. Because of the chained dog’s minimal physical space and lack of socialization, these animals often become exceedingly hyper and aggressive. Dogs who are "resident" dogs do not learn to become protective of the people who own them who are living in a house. They learn to become protective of the area in which they are forced to live. The reasons for actual dog attacks (as opposed to incidents of simple and avoidable injuries) are often complex, but the answer to preventing dog attacks is relatively simple: humane care and control of dogs is often all that is needed to prevent most dog attacks. A study by the The Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association (JAVMA) in 2013 revealed the following statistics related to bite fatalities: no able bodied person being present to intervene (87.1%); the victim having no familiar relationship with the dog(s) (85.2%); the dog(s), owner failing to neuter/spay the dog(s)(84.4%); a victim’s compromised ability, whether based on age or physical condition, to manage their interactions with the dog(s) (77.4%); the owner keeping dog(s) as resident dog(s), rather than as family pet(s) (76.2%); the owner’s prior mismanagement of the dog(s) (37.5%); and the owner’s abuse or neglect of dog(s) (21.1%). Four or more of these factors were present in 80.5% of cases; breed was not one of those factors. Animal welfare. Dogs thrive on interaction with human beings and other animals. They need regular interaction with their family members. A dog kept chained (or confined to a pen 24/7/365) whether for hours, days, months, or years can suffer tremendous psychological damage. These sensitive and loving animals desire and deserve as much comfort and happiness as beloved indoor companion animals. Many chained dogs spend their lives connected to a six-foot or shorter metal chain. Under these limited conditions, dogs are forced to eat, drink, urinate, defecate, and sleep with no respite or companionship. They often suffer through blistering heat and freezing cold, rain, snow, and wind. Their "home" can turn into a filthy muddy mess, dust bowl, or frozen landscape. Feeling vulnerable and threatened on a daily basis, many chained dogs will lunge at anything that goes by them. The constant lunging often causes the dog’s collar to tear into the skin and can, in some cases, become embedded in the dog’s neck, requiring surgery to remove the collar. In some extreme cases, the straining may cause injury or even death to the dog. Some dogs choke to death when they attempt to jump over fences and hang themselves. Chained dogs are caught in a vicious cycle. The longer they stay chained, the less likely they are to have human companionship, thereby making it more difficult to handle them. The more difficult they become, the less likely a human will want to engage with them. They are caught in a downward spiral, not of their own making. The Humane Society of the United States, the U. S. Department of Agriculture, the ASPCA, the American Veterinary Medical Association and numerous animal experts have spoken out against chaining and tethering because it is inhumane and can lead to aggressive behavior. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) concluded in a study that the dogs most likely to attack are male, unneutered and chained. Part of the opposition I got to my ordinance related to people’s inability to financially be able to comply. I know that there are cultural differences between generations and in some states related to dogs as inside animals v. as outside animals. I read a position once which said, "no animal is coming inside my house unless it’s going on a plate." I understand that people have different ideas on that subject. But having your dog live outside is a choice. If your dog lives inside and is part of your family, you have fewer expenditures to keep your dog contained. If your dog lives outside, there may be costs tied to that from providing adequate shelter or providing adequate containment if your yard is not fenced. I have a trolley line in the trunk of my car which I have been taking to city council meetings as a visual aid. It got it from Walmart for $15. If you choose to have your dog live outside, I want you to take care of your dog and help keep our communities safe. If are you are not willing to do both of those things, perhaps having a dog is not the best choice for you. We call them man’s best friend. We need to treat them that way and we need to be mindful of how our choices affect those around us. (images courtesy of Tamira Ci Thayne and Dogs Deserve Better, Inc.)
The subject of whether or not companion animals go to Heaven is a controversial one. After we let Snake go in 2006, I did a lot of reading on the topic including a wonderful book by M. Jean Holmes called, "Do Dogs Go to Heaven? Eternal Answers for Animal Lovers." It helped. There was a big hullabaloo in the media a couple of years ago after Pope Francis made some comments about dogs going to Heaven which were initially mistranslated and later clarified. Regardless of what Pope Francis really said or how you interpret it personally, most of us have our own opinions about whether or not animals have souls. (And pretty much every animal lover on the planet got a kick out of a meet and greet Pope Francis had with some service dogs last year which led to some memorable images in which a dog "photo bombed" the Pope.) There is a new movie coming out called "A Dog's Purpose" which is based on the W. Bruce Cameron book by the same name which tells the story of a dog which is reincarnated many times and "who finds the meaning of his own existence through the lives of the humans he teaches to laugh and love." I have my own beliefs regarding companion animals which have been forged through time, experience and loss. Whether you agree with me or not is of little consequence. I believe our companion animals do have souls. I believe that when they leave this Earthly place, they move on to another existence, as do people. I believe that some animals come into our lives to teach us lessons and to help us learn how to be better versions of ourselves. They are part of our becoming. I also believe that some of us are animal guardians or paladins and that there are times when animals are put in our path (or we develop some awareness of them) so we can either personally help them get where they are meant to be or to facilitate that process in some way. So, that is an animal guardian? In my view, these are people who are focused enough on animals to know when they need help, are willing to help those animals in need and who believe that they are used as instruments as part of a bigger plan to help certain animals. If you view yourself as an animal guardian, you may be nodding by now, thinking back to all of the times that an animal crossed your path or entered your life inexplicably, not to become a member of your family, but so that you could be used as an instrument to help that animal. Most people in animal rescue are eternal guardians and may feel like animal magnets. Something that happened to a friend recently served to reinforce my belief about her status as an animal guardian and I thought it worth sharing her story. Shelley was staying at a the Harrah’s in Reno for the holidays over the Christmas Eve/Christmas Day weekend. She and her family had taken the train to Reno with her mom for a holiday trip in 2015 and they decided to go for a memorial trip in 2016 after her mom passed away. It was a way to honor her mom and get through that first holiday season without her. It was cold. Seventeen degrees to be exact. Shelley and her family were coming back from dinner on Christmas Eve when they saw a young cat run around the long entry to the hotel, crying. The cat was obviously trying to get someone’s attention. Shelley and some others did their best to get the cat, feeding it chicken at one point to distract it. They had no luck at all. Shelley stayed up most of the night revisiting the entrance trying to get the cat but with all of the foot traffic, it was impossible. When she got up at 4:00 on Christmas morning, the cat was nowhere to be found. They were scheduled to leave Reno at 8:00 a.m. Shelley called a local rescue group and left a voice mail to explain the situation and to ask them for help, only to get a text later that day saying there was nothing they could do and to contact animal control. Shelly was despondent, later telling me, "you know what it’s like, one of those situations that you cannot help, and that will haunt you forever." But all was not lost. Shelley told me about her "Harrah’s kitty." Reno? I have contacts there. I checked in with Diane Blankenburg of Humane Network whom I know from my no kill advocacy. Diane was the Community Programs and Development Director of Nevada Humane Society in Reno for years up until 2013. I was sure there was something which could be done. I asked Diane if there wasn’t some way that the NHS could help refer Shelley to a local organization which does TNR (trap, neuter, return) in the city. (Much like other "entertainment" cities like Las Vegas, Reno has a large population of free roaming cats who live in certain areas due to the resources they find there.) Diane said she was sure NHS still had a TNR program. She connected with Denise Stevens, the Chief Operating Officer at NHS to explain about the cat. Denise was gracious enough to contact Harrah’s security staff about the cat and was told that the talkative little cat had been taken to Washoe County Animal Services (which shares a building with NHS). The Harrah’s cat was safe. He was transferred to NHS from animal control and was temporarily named "Feral Tune" due to his propensity to talk. We’re waiting on an update now about his condition. Looking at what happened over a period of days, the outcome was surely improbable. What are the odds that a single cat seen at a very busy hotel in a very busy city would be helped over a holiday weekend? Surely lots of other people saw and heard the cat. Shelley was worried for days, not knowing the outcome and fearing the worst. She felt responsible in some way. But she also underestimated her role as an animal guardian. This is not the first time an animal in need found Shelley and it won’t be the last. I have no doubt that Shelley saw Feral Tune so she would seek help and set a series of events in motion which would ultimately confirm the lost cat was safe. California + Nevada + Alabama = a saved cat. As it was surely meant to be. NOTE: If you think you are an animal guardian, I cannot encourage you strongly enough to educate yourself about some basic issues regarding companion animals and to connect with local animal shelters and rescue groups so that you have a plan in place in the event that an animal in need finds you. Be prepared for your next guardian encounter and be prepared to see the situation through to the point where the animal is placed in a new home or with a reputable organization. In short, be prepared to "own" your guardian status. It is not enough to by sympathetic to animals in need; you have to be prepared to actually help them in a direct and meaningful way to the extent you can. Please also do not assume that any animal you help is unwanted or was abandoned. Pets go missing very day for a host of reasons and not all of them relate to someone's irresponsibility. If you find a lost animal, report that fact to your local animal control personnel and list the pet on Helping Lost Pets. Every municipality has a "property hold period" so people can reclaim a lost pet. The best outcome for most lost pets is simply to get back home where they belong with people who care about them. (image of Tashi courtesy of Becky Lynn Tegze; image of Feral Tune courtesy of the Nevada Humane Society)
In the years since I had my unwelcome epiphany about the plight of shelter animals – which led to greater awareness about a host of issues concerning companion animals in general – I have had the privilege of connecting with people across the country whom I consider trailblazers for the sake of animals. If you are new to the topic of animal welfare, you may not know their names. I call them Nathan and Mike and Theresa and Rudi and Dan and Mary and Ryan and Tamira and Davyd and Becky and Brian and Valerie and Debi and Terri and Kathy and Christie and Doug and Bett and Karen and Keith. All are very active related to the topics of no kill animal sheltering and ending puppy mills and ending the chaining/tethering of dogs and getting lost dogs back home and TNR of community cats and ending breed stereotypes and bans. What all of these contacts of mine have in common is that they don’t work for large national animal welfare organizations. Some of them manage nonprofit organizations, but most of them work full-time jobs and aren’t paid a dime for their advocacy. It is something they do because they are compelled to take action to improve our society and improve the welfare of the dogs and cats we say we value and care for. They act because they have to and it is part of who they are as people. I get a lot of email from people in other states about a variety of issues due to my outspokenness. Many want to know how to bring about change in their own areas and really don’t know where to start. Most have put some reliance on large national organizations to bring about change and have been left disappointed in that process. They ask, “what could I possibly do as one person? How can I possibly make things better related to _____________ (fill in the blank on the topic) in my city or my state?” I think that for most of us, the idea of taking on an issue ourselves is pretty daunting. We know we want to help, but may feel overwhelmed at the work we see before us to bring about change. The problems just seem so – to use an overused word – HUGE. Take heart, animal advocate. Because you do have the power to bring about change and your voice is louder than you may imagine. You do need to educate yourself on your topic. An informed advocate is an effective advocate. But speaking out on your own can be of more value than you may realize in your current state of mind. I was reminded of this recently while reading a book written by a contact of mine named Becky Monroe called Bark Until Heard: Among the Silenced Dogs I Found My Voice. Becky and I just recently connected on the topic of puppy mills as a result of one of my earlier blogs on the topic. I have yet to blog about her book, but the reasons she wrote her book got me thinking about this whole topic of advocacy by individual people. Without taking away from your enjoyment of Bark Until Heard, the premise is pretty simple: Becky ended up at a puppy mill auction somewhat unexpectedly, saved a dog she named Thorp and was forever changed by the process, making it part of her life’s purpose to educate others about the horrors of the puppy mill industry in an effort to bring an end to it. I’m sure when Becky started what could be described as a crusade to end puppy mills, she had no idea how successful she would be. But that didn’t matter to her. She connected with like-minded people, she sent emails and composed letters, she wrote articles which helped people get a glimpse of what she had experienced and now she has a very successful book she is using as a means to reach more of the public. She truly did find her voice. I was also reminded of this recently while engaging with fellow advocate Steve Shank of Lake County, Florida. Steve has been working for years to shine a light on the dark corners of the house that is animal sheltering in his county. He has been met with opposition, resistance and most recently what I would consider at best deception and at worst lies by the current shelter leadership to make things seem better than they are. Steve is just one person. But he did not give up and he stayed true to his vision. He ultimately connected with a county commissioner who got on board with his goals right away and in just a couple of weeks, a no kill consultant will be traveling to his county to meet with local officials and talk about plans for the county to run a no kill animal shelter using progressive and proven programs. I am sure that much like Becky, Steve had no clue where all this would go when he decided to take the risk of being the one to speak out for the animals who could not speak for themselves. The future of Lake County is still unfolding, but I’m sure we can all agree that there are many changes ahead and that the animals in that area are soon to be safer than at any time in the history of the county. Steve and his contacts will face opposition from a host of sources which will surprise many people. PETA, local rescuers and general naysayers will say that no kill is not possible or it means institutionalized hoarding or it costs too much. The problem with the pushback like that is that it seldom survives the reality of communities which change drastically and in very short periods of time. It’s hard to say the world is flat or we didn’t go to the moon or no kill communities are not real when they continue to emerge with increasing speed. Being a voice for animals is hard work. It may cause you to lose what you thought were friendships. It may baffle the people you love who are closest to you who support you, but who may not truly understand the depth of your commitment to bring about change. It may cause you to be vilified by organizations or individuals as they defend the status quo and focus more on the messenger than on the reasons why the message was necessary in the first place. But never doubt the power of individual advocacy related to companion animals whether it is on a general topic or whether is it focused on a state or municipality which is using tax dollars related to animals in ways which are not consistent with our culture and our values in America. Sometimes all it takes is one person putting themselves “out there” to help others find the courage to do the same. Which means that instead of being an army of one, you may find that you are one of many as you work together to change our society and help many more animals than you may ever realize. To borrow a lyric from Sara Bareilles, show me how big your brave is. (images courtesy of Becky Monroe and Steve and Hank Shank)
We hear the phrases all the time: "Adopt! Don’t Shop!" and "Don’t Breed or Buy While Shelter Dogs Die!" In a perfect world more people would adopt animals from shelters and rescue groups and that would be the go-to option for most families. In that same perfect world, the only dog breeding taking place in our country would be done by responsible breeders who are in it not for the money, but to perpetuate breed standards (as compared to modifying breeds to the point where it is abusive and the dogs either cannot walk or cannot breathe). Ours is not a perfect world. A lot of people get dogs who come from puppy mills or huge dog breeding operations because they are either blinded by the cuteness they see or they don’t want to know where the dog came from or a combination of the two. There are, in fact, responsible breeders out there, none of whom would ever sell a dog in a pet store or in a Walmart parking lot. I know there are those who oppose all dog breeding. I simply do not because I think that’s unrealistic. I oppose irresponsible breeding and breeding with a focus on profit and with little or no regard for the well-being of dogs. We in rescue and advocacy tell the public one thing all the time: do not buy a dog from a pet store. Do not, do not, do not. We tell them that when they buy that cute puppy in the window, they are only perpetuating an industry which enslaves dogs in conditions that would make us sick if we saw pictures or actually went there. We also tell them to not buy dogs from web sites, newspaper ads or street corners and to engage in due diligence in dealing with local breeders to determine the conditions from which the dog came to make sure they are not inadvertently supporting a mill operation. In essence, we are zero tolerance when it comes to people buying puppy mill dogs. We encourage them to "just say no" and we judge people harshly who cave in to that cute little face in the pet store and who buy the puppy, sometimes for thousands of dollars. But what about how we behave as rescuers and advocates? Are we really any better than the public we are so quick to judge? Most of the people I know in rescue are those I would describe as purists. They either pull animals from animal shelters (most of which are kill facilities) to adopt them out to the public or they take animals directly from the public in order to find them new homes. In many cases they are taking the harder-to-place animals as opposed to younger or "cuter" animals and they function based solely on donations and with no taxpayer assistance. These people are surely aware of the concept of a dog auction but they have never attended one and would never even consider going to one. There is a faction in the rescue community, however, which engages in behavior which is not only as bad as buying a dog from a pet store, but is in some ways much, much worse as far as I'm concerned: I’m talking about rescuers who buy dogs at auction. I first touched on this topic very briefly in a blog I wrote in late July which caused quite a bit of uproar from people who don’t agree with me. I was on the receiving end of some pretty strong hostility and a lot of accusations. I’m okay with that. I will not be bullied. My opinions are my own and while I love dogs, my opinions on the topic of rescuers at dog auctions is based on reason and logic and not on my emotional attachment to dogs. I want to be perfectly clear on this subject. As much as those in rescue and advocacy circles are zero tolerance for people who buy a puppy from a pet store, I am equally zero tolerance when it comes to rescuers who pay large amounts of money for dogs at auction and call it "rescue." It is not. I’m not sure exactly what to call it other than a purchase, but it is not rescue. For me, it actually borders on a form of either collecting behavior at the worst and "ego rescue" at the least. I know that saying this will not be popular with many in the rescue community. So why bother? I’m saying it because I think it needs to be said, both for the benefit of some in the rescue community who can be reached and for the benefit of those who donate to rescues, thinking they are doing a good thing by helping a rescue group buy dogs at auction. (click on image to view as a .pdf file) In order to present my position on this topic more thoroughly, I reached out to some of my subject matter experts on the topic. These are people who have decades of collective experience in dealing with the puppy mill issue. They are rescuers and advocates with ties not only in the Amish community but in the dog breeding and dog auction community. They are active in seeking legislation related to mills and they are working hard to educate the public about how their behavior relates to changing or ending the mill industry. If you are a rescuer who is absolutely convinced that it is a great idea to solicit donations to buy dogs at auction, it is unlikely that reading this blog will change your opinion. So be it. If you are a person who has donated money to a rescue so the rescue can buy dogs at auction, you surely did so with the best of intentions. I just ask you to step away from your behavior long enough to consider what it is you really think you are achieving when you buy dogs at auction. The highlights of the input I received from my contacts are as follows. • Rescuers have changed the landscape of dog auctions. As recently as 10 years ago, the presence of rescuers and rescue groups at dog auctions was not the norm in most regions. Most of those present at auction were breeders who were at the auction to buy dogs to add to their businesses. That changed not quite 10 years ago in the Great Lakes region and about 6 years ago in the Midwest. Rescuers had an increasing presence at auction and were often easy to spot from the way they dressed, the way they behaved and the amount of money they were willing to spend on dogs. During this time, it was not uncommon for some in rescue get dogs for free, get "dollar dogs" or to get large numbers of dogs for small amounts of money (i.e., 50 dogs for $3. Yes you read that correctly). The presence of rescuers at auction is now extremely obvious to both the auction companies and to the breeders who are both fascinated by and repelled by the rescuers’ behavior. • The presence of rescuers at auction has completely changed the auction process itself. The rescuers are often paying more for dogs than the auction houses have ever seen before, and in some regions dogs are now brought to auctions with the sole purpose of being sold to rescues. Rescues have created a niche market of sorts due to their obvious presence at auction. They usually come with large sums of money and often announce their intent to "save" dogs "no matter what," sometimes focusing on specific breeds of dogs they favor. • The amount of money rescuers are paying for dogs at auction bears no relation to the amounts breeders are willing to pay for dogs at auction. In one auction, a rescuer paid $9,000 dollars for a female dog and her puppies. It is not uncommon for a rescue group to pay $30,000 to $40,000 at auction for 5 to 10 dogs. This willingness of rescuers to pay such large amounts of money truly leaves the auction houses and breeders laughing all the way to the bank. They don’t talk about it while the auction is taking place or while the rescuers are within hearing range. That would be foolish. They absolutely talk about it after the auction ends and transactions are finalized. The behavior or rescuers is also viewed with disdain by many breeders, some of whom are second or third generation "farmers" who are trying to make a living to pay their bills. For them, spending a thousand or more dollars for a single dog at auction is offensive. Breeders have been known to call the big money spent by rescuers at auction "disgusting" even though the economic benefit to them is obvious. • The types of dogs bought by rescuers at auction may surprise most people. There are some in rescue who have developed relationships with breeders and auction houses which enable them to get dogs who are older or injured for free or for some nominal amounts of money. Most rescuers, however, are buying pregnant dogs, dogs who have just given birth and younger, more appealing dogs, including puppies. They are not buying dogs who are older, injured or sick and who are actually in most need of rescue. Rescuers who pay big money for the "best" dogs are essentially cutting out the middleman in the sales process. They negate the need for a broker to market the dogs to a store or the need for a store to sell the dog since they are getting dogs directly from the source. In the process of doing that, they make the sale more profitable. • On a scale of 1 to 10, the behavior of rescuers at auction related to advocacy efforts to end puppy mills is a 10. When rescuers buy dogs at auction for large sums (as opposed to seeking relinquishment of dogs to them for no cost), they are paying way more than any breeder would pay and they are simply providing more funding to breeders (and the auction house) to make milling operations larger and more profitable. The argument that buying a dog at auction prevents a breeder from profiting off that dog is one-sided and completely avoids the reality of the business aspects of breeding dogs for profit. When a rescuer pays $2,000 for a dog which would ordinarily sell for $20 or even $200, they may have removed that dog from the breeding operation, but they have put more money in the breeder’s pocket to buy even more dogs and make even more money. • When asked my contacts what rescuers should be doing instead of buying dogs at auction, I was provided with this input which I have paraphrased: Rescues should avoid auctions completely. They should contact breeders and ask them to relinquish the dogs that they are done with, including the old dogs, sick dogs, disfigured dogs and puppies that they cannot sell. NO money should change hands. The rescues can then raise funds to provide the medical care these dogs will need. Only then will they truly be saving dogs. Dog auctions are a tragic embarrassment to our society and to humane-minded citizens. We have been asked if people should "buy" or "rescue" dogs at auction. Buying at auctions simply means that it will be profitable. If it is profitable, it will continue and more dogs will be bred for sale at future dog auctions. We understand compassion for the dogs being sold and know that there will be some who will buy. We understand both sides of the situation. We hope that in the long run, not buying will produce the best outcome to end these auctions altogether. Rescuers who buy dogs at auction should take a long, hard look at what they hope to accomplish. They should look at the "why" of what they are doing and ask themselves, "what is the grander plan for these dogs?" Anyone who is willing to pay $9,000 for a puppy has an ego problem. They will never be able to recoup the money paid for that dog and they have paid a breeder much, much more money that the dog may be worth to another breeder. As far as people who donate to rescues who buy dogs at auction, they should ask themselves how much good could be done with that same money to help dogs in other ways and while working to educate the public about why they shouldn’t buy mill dogs. They should consider how much good could be done to care for older, more challenged dogs obtained from breeders for free and to give them a good life. There are three kinds of rescuers: rescue as a business, rescue for ego and rescue as purity. Buying dogs at auction is not good business and it is not pure rescue. It is a purchase and it is more about ego than it is about helping dogs. When you rescue for ego, you are putting yourself before the welfare of dogs and you are putting your personal need to feel important in the way of slowing or ending the very industry you say you oppose. I believe that at the heart of every true rescuer is a desire to save animals and give them a better life. I also believe that those who donate to rescues presume that their money will be used in the best possible way to help the most animals in need. That’s how I view the donations I make. It’s time to stop enabling the puppy millers and the commercial dog breeders who treat dogs as a farm commodity to be bred, sold and bought like equipment, cotton or corn. We do that not only when we persuade the animal-loving public to say "no" to buying mill dogs. We do it when those in rescue walk away from the auction tent and focus on helping other dogs in need, educating the public and promoting legislation which changes our society related to the commercial farming of dogs. If you are a rescuer and you feel absolutely compelled to save dogs at auction, please don’t go there with your bankroll in hand and a determination that you will outspend anyone who gets in your way. Take the time to develop and foster relationships with the breeders and the auction companies so that you can arrange to have older, injured or challenged dogs relinquished to you for free. By doing that you are helping the dogs who need you most, you are not making the dog breeding industry more profitable and you staying true to the pure form of "rescue" which your donors no doubt expect from you. And then you can go back to the very important business of educating the public and supporting legislation at local, state and federal levels which seeks to make life better for mill dogs until the day that puppy mills become part of our shameful past. (images courtesy of Hector Parayuelos, Nicole Mays, PetShopPuppies and National Mill Dog Rescue) NOTE: I have continued to receive comments on this blog almost five years after I first published it which disagree with my opinion and criticize my logic. I am no longer taking comments on this blog.
If you are a rescue group that buys at auction, you are a broker and you must be licensed by the USDA for that purpose. If you support a rescue group which goes to auctions and buys dogs, ask yourself why the rescue is not saving dogs from shelters and from the public who may need help while at the same time engaging in political efforts to modify the dog breeding industry. I see soliciting donations to buy dogs at auction as a form of emotional blackmail. You can try to categorize the purchase of dogs at auction as honorable. I do not agree. It is harmful. More then two years after I published this blog, a very thorough article in the Washington Post covered it in much more detail, based on years of research. I encourage you to read that article to educate yourself. I have finished reworking my slide show about community cats and TNR in advance of National Feral Cat Day which is on Sunday, October 16th. My prior version from 2011 lacked some of the current terms of art we now use and it needed an upgrade. Thanks to Fisher for the music use. Thanks to Lisa, Chriss and others for the video clips and images. As I blogged about recently, my experiences with TNR (trap, neuter, return) are both personal from the colony I help manage and as a result of friends and contacts across the country who do TNR and have for years. Whenever I hear someone speaking out against TNR, I wonder if they actually care about cats. I’m confident from what I’ve read and from the research by Alley Cat Allies that TNR truly is the most humane method to reduce cat populations. And I am reminded of the cats we have helped as a result of TNR who may have suffered and died without our help, many of whom were social to people and were just lost or injured. Chloe, Abby, Romey, Dot, Ford, Locke, Hollis, Channing, Holton, Wynn, Larry, Sky.
A friend of mine in California who does TNR recently helped a male cat she named T.C. It took weeks to trap him and he was put into a foster home. It was later determined that T.C. was very sick and he ultimately could not survive his ailments. His foster mom, Nan, wrote this note about his passing and I hope you will take a minute to read it. And then you will think twice when someone says that free roaming cats should just be destroyed. If your cat was lost or went missing, you would want someone doing TNR to help him or her: It is with a heavy heart, deep sorrow, and much sadness, I bring the news that T.C. lost the fight for his life today - he passed away this morning in my arms. Though he was a fighter, "my trooper", after being neglected for so long, it was just too much for his frail body. I'm glad I was able to be here for him. I am going to miss his little smiling face, looking at me upside-down, as I would rub his full belly. Not many male cats will let you rub their belly without shredding your arm, he definitely was not a feral cat. My condolence lies in the fact that T.C. got to know what it felt like to have a full belly every day, along with a warm comfortable bed to sleep in without worrying about anything, and having someone doting on him, giving him all the love and affection he wanted. Getting to know him was priceless. Godspeed, T.C. I'm sorry you couldn't stay. But I'm thankful you were helped and loved and you received the best possible care in your last days. National Feral Cat Day is on Sunday, October 16, 2016. As we approach this national day of awareness and education, I wanted to blog about the topic of community cats. I know I tend to talk about dogs more than cats on my website simply due to my volunteer work for certain nonprofit organizations which help dogs, but the issue of community cats is one I deal with on a regular basis because of the managed colony of community cats where I work. What is a Community Cat? A community cat is a cat who lives outside. These cats are also known of as outdoor cats, stray cats, alley cats, feral cats, street cats, barn cats and tomcats. They originate from former domestic cats who were lost or abandoned and then learned to live outdoors or in environments involving little human contact, such as warehouses, factories or abandoned buildings. Outdoor cats live in family groups called colonies. They are bonded to their environments due to the resources they find there: food, water and shelter. They are also bonded to each other for companionship and protection. What is a Feral Cat? A feral cat is a community cat but not all community cats are feral. A feral cat is one who is not socialized to humans. You can often tell the difference between feral cat and a cat who is social to humans through body language and behavior. A stray cat which may be social to people will often approach people, houses, porches and cars. A feral cat will not approach people and will seek out places to hide. A stray cat might walk or move much like a house cat with his or her tail in the air. A feral cat may crawl, crouch or stay low to the ground and protect his or her body with the tail. A stray cat may look at you, blink, make eye contact or even vocalize near you. A feral cat is unlikely to make eye contact or vocalize at all. Shouldn’t We Just Destroy These Cats? Some people would argue that community cats should be destroyed in order to remove them from the ecosystem or to prevent them from destroying birds. Free-roaming cats live in certain areas because of the resources available there. If you destroy the cats, more will simply take their place. This is called “the vacuum effect.” The arguments that feral cats destroy wildlife or spread rabies are myths. Habitat destruction and pesticides are the main cause of diminishing wildlife. According to Alley Cat Allies, the last confirmed cat to human transmission of rabies occurred more than 40 years ago. Outdoor cats are as healthy and pet cats and can have the same life span. In stark contrast, more than 70% of cats who end up in shelters nationally are destroyed. When it comes to community cats, that number rises to 100% in all but the most progressive communities. A national survey conducted by Alley Cat Allies showed that more than 80% of Americans believe that leaving a stray cat outside to live out his or her life is more humane than having the cat caught and killed. More than 40% of Americans have cared for an outdoor cat; it is clear that Americans want compassionate approaches for cats. How Do We Help These Cats? Studies have shown that Trap-Neuter-Return - TNR - is the only method proven to be humane and effective at controlling community cat population growth. Using this technique, all the cats in a colony are trapped, neutered (or spayed), vaccinated and then returned to their territory where caretakers provide them with regular food and shelter. It is customary to “ear tip” the left ear of the cat during surgery so the cat be easily identified as a cat who has been sterilized and vaccinated. Young kittens and friendly adults trapped in TNR are placed in foster care and eventually adopted out to good homes. TNR stabilizes the size of the colony by eliminating new litters. The nuisance behavior often associated with feral cats is also dramatically reduced, including the yowling and fighting that come with mating activity and the odor of un-neutered males spraying to mark their territory. What Are Some of the Indirect Benefits of TNR? In addition to helping cats who live outside, another significant advantage to TNR is that it lessens the number of kittens and cats flowing into local shelters. It is more humane and cost-effective to use TNR to control cat populations so that tax-dollars are not needlessly spent on what is sometimes referred to as a "catch and kill" method of handling free-roaming cats. Another indirect benefit of TNR is what cats who are social to humans, but who are just lost, scared or injured, are helped in the process. A cat who is outside and who needs help is often hard to distinguish from a feral cat. It is only in the process of doing TNR that rescuers and people who help cat colonies are able to help cats who require veterinary care or who are completely social to humans and just need a new home. Why Would Anyone Oppose TNR? The topic of feral cats is one which is the subject of a lot of controversy nationally. In spite of numerous studies to the contrary, there are those who are simply convinced that free roaming cats are a danger to wildlife, they harm the environment and they should just be destroyed. I simply could not agree more. I will leave it up to organizations like Alley Cat Allies to fend off the blows of the cat haters with science. For me, this is just a simple issue: TNR works. My Personal TNR Story. I work at an office building in a centrally located area of a fairly large city, next to the major thoroughfare which runs through the city from north to south. We have been doing TNR of community cats for years with the help of a local rescue group called Forgotten Felines. I know for a fact that in the years we have been doing TNR, 90% of the cats we have helped were actually social to people and were not feral at all. Many of them acted unsocial at first, but once they were trapped and helped, we found that they actually seemed relieved to be safe and in the company of people. Yes, some of our cats really are feral and they live outside in our managed colony, moving between parcels primarily through the street drainage system. They are fed once a day 365 days a year, we monitor their health by observing them and I dare to say they have it pretty good between nutritious food and some cat houses which are actually insulated with spray foam. For those who oppose TNR, saying it is cruel or not effective, I say this: if you really care about the welfare of cats, you simply cannot discount the fact that TNR reduces cat populations, keeps kittens from being born and helps pet cats who are social to people. We have helped cats who were so thin they were on death’s doorstep. We had one cat with multiple broken bones in her front left arm that had to be treated by an orthopedic surgeon. Still other cats have had infections which gone untreated may have killed them. But for us doing TNR and helping the cats who make their way to one of our feeding stations, they would have died and in many cases their death would be slow and painful. And but for us doing TNR and helping cats here, they would likely have ended up in our municipal animal shelter where they would have been destroyed using tax dollars. If your cat was lost or went missing, you would want someone doing TNR to help him or her. I cover a lot of topics on my website in an effort to help educate the animal-loving public on some serious issues regarding companion animals in our country. What all of these topics have in common is the fact that they all relate to the topic of the destruction of animals in buildings we ordinarily call shelters. Although most of the animal loving public may give little thought to what happens in shelters, the reality is that we are all paying for what happens there whether it is good or bad. Whether it involves life-saving or death. In all but the most progressive communities in our country, healthy and treatable animals are being systematically destroyed in municipally operated buildings using public funds while the public is blamed for that very process. If only the public _______________, the argument goes, this would not be necessary. You can fill in the blank with "was more responsible," "would only spay and neuter pets," "did not treat pets as disposable" and so on. While there are more and more no kill communities emerging with the passage of time, those places are still in the minority as public officials continue the decades old practice of adopting out a few animals and destroying the rest, doing nothing to stop that cycle.
Some events of recent weeks have caused me to reflect on the whole subject of political advocacy related to shelter animals. As the concept of "no kill" has evolved over the years and across the country, there are factions which have formed which are essentially at odds with each other. There are some who say that in order to reform our animal sheltering system, we should not be overly critical of those who manage shelters where animals die and that we should work harder on bridge-building to change what is happening. There are people in this faction who go so far as to say that governments are really only required to house animals for property reasons so we really shouldn't push them too hard. There are others, like me, who believe in diplomatic communication about this topic, but who also believe that it should be handled with a sense of urgency. As Nathan Winograd once aptly wrote, "with each day we delay, the body count rises." Because we are talking about the lives of animals (and their potential death), this subject is unique in terms of seeking accountability for the manner in which our tax dollars are spent. People complain to police departments all the time about increased patrolling related to reducing crime. They complain to public works departments about garbage pick-up. They complain to traffic engineering departments about the timing of traffic lights which they think are too slow or about roadway conditions. They complain about a host of issues most of which do not relate to the imminent threat of death. I am, and have been, openly critical of the animal shelter in the city where I work. For me, this is no different that seeking municipal accountability for any other public service function of local government other than the fact that I think we simply cannot delay in implementing change. It is perfectly logical for me to not only say "I think you can to better" but to also make recommendations on how that can happen which are based on proven results in other communities using established programs which do not cost more. I know that the topic of animals is an emotional one for most people. The American public simply does not want tax dollars spent to destroy shelter animals when those same funds can be spent to ensure public safety and still keep animals alive. When progress is made, as is the case in the city where I work, I am fully capable of applauding that progress. I absolutely give credit where credit is due. Where I differ with some is on this idea that I cannot applaud progress while still asking for more. This is not an episode of Let's Make a Deal where my choices are Door Number 1 (give praise) and Door Number 2 (be critical). Both of those behaviors have value. But when the lives of shelter animals are still at risk for whatever reason (lack of commitment, lack of program development, defensiveness to criticism), I not only have the right to remain critical, I also have an obligation to do that for the sake of my values and my exercise of the right to free speech. Does change take time? It sure does. But the truth is that we have to act with a sense or urgency when lives are at stake. As a veteran, I believe strongly in accountability for how our government operates at local, state and federal levels using public money. But I also believe that it you feel strongly about something, it is up to you to speak out about it so that those who govern us know what you want. Complaining to your friends or posting on social media is of little value and you have to take your complaints to those in positions to effect change. I have been told by some in animal advocacy circles that I should stop criticizing my local shelter because they have done so well. I simply will not. I can acknowledge that a lot of things have changed and animals are safer here now than they were in the past. Since I know that healthy dogs still die in the shelter here, I simply will not stop being critical just because it makes some people uncomfortable. The lives of animals in our nation's shelters often depend on the outspokenness of advocates. If it is permissible for me to complain about a pot hole in the road, it is absolutely permissible for me to complain about a dead dog named Jackson who was a year old when he was destroyed to make space in the "shelter." And while I am sure shelter volunteers will demand that I spend hours in a shelter in order to have the right to complain, I am equally sure that no one would ask me to become a worker on a paving crew in order to help this city do a better job. Those who are public servants would do well to remember that role in our governments. We are paying them and they are using our money whether we approve of their behavior or not. Public service is not for everyone and we should not confuse branches of municipal government with private businesses which are more insulated from public comment. I'm sorry we failed you, Jackson. I will not be silent. I will not go along to get along. |
AuthorI am an animal welfare advocate. My goal is to help people understand some basic issues related to companion animals in America. Awareness leads to education leads to action leads to change. Archives
August 2023
Categories
All
image courtesy of Terrah Johnson
|